Dave
I promised in Banff I will bug you:-)
First of all, I have refreshed the Turtle version of the RDF primer that
I did a few month ago:
http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/
which still needs a good review, but it is ready for it at least.
There is clearly a possible discussion on the content. Indeed, my goal
was to stay as close as possible to the original text[1] although, I
admit, my fingers were itching to rewrite certain things or remove
certain section altogether (eg, bags and sequences). However, I believe
that from a didactic point of view keeping to the original
recommendation may be the best thing to have to make it very clear to
the community that RDF/XML is only one serialization and Turtle is
another one... Besides, once we engage into more detailed changes, it
could open up the floodgates of endless discussions which I am sure we
should do.
However... the issue is how to move on with the "real" stuff. I know you
had in mind to have a spec and tutorial based on the documents you have.
But, in view of your time and mine, I wonder whether we should not try
to do something quicker. I can very well imagine to take the current
turtle spec you have, make the changes alongside the open issues on the
language and turn it into a W3C note as is. Even that version (plus the
turtle version of the primer) would lead to public discussion, I am
sure, and will take time. However, it still looks like the quickest way
to go. We can then think about a dedicated tutorial or something, to be
published as a _separate_ interest group note which you can do or we can
do when we have the time. My goal is really to have a stable W3C note
for turtle as is...
I may have some empty cycles in July, so I can take the current document
and turn it into a W3C Note format if this helps...
Ivan
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/
--
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf